Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
William

Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

Recommended Posts

Yes. Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

 

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

 

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

 

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

 

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

 

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

 

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

 

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

 

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

 

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

 

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. - by chick.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are any of the apocryphal texts worth reading? I've read Judith and Tobit out of curiosity, and they seemed like folk tales to me. I was expecting them to be more interesting, considering how controversial they are.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are any of the apocryphal texts worth reading? I've read Judith and Tobit out of curiosity, and they seemed like folk tales to me. I was expecting them to be more interesting, considering how controversial they are.
First Maccabees has historical value. Are they worth reading? It depends.

 

These documents gives us a better insight in the culture and historical context of the time. They are a window into the thoughts and ideas of the writers. They tell us what the authors thought was important, the issues, the events. These texts provide a matrix for their understanding of the Scriptures just as the DDS did for Qumran community.

 

There is also the linguistic impact these texts have had upon lexical studies, the understanding of idioms, and syntax. The more literature we have the better our understanding of the languages (i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

 

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

 

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

 

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

 

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

 

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

 

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

 

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

 

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

 

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

 

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. - by chick.com

For the most part I would not trust anything from Chick (By the way Jack Chick died this year.). Much of his information is flat out wrong or at the very least misleading and most of it is bias. For example, his claim "not one of them is in the Hebrew language" is not true. Fragments of the book of Tobit have been found in Hebrew and Aramaic among the DDS. Also, his claim that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt is an example of his bias. He was a KJV onlyist. Edited by Origen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with Origen, I think it important to say that Luke 24:44 tells us that Jesus did not think the Apocrypha important enough to teach. Also Luke 11:51 tells us what is required of us. I consider anything more additional reading. However, I caution others because these things may influence us, for example, I used to read Gnostic writings, and some things I read I mistaken from memory as being Scripture. In Luke 11:51 Jesus quoted the Hebrew OT in chronological order, and the Apocrypha which was already completed and existed in the day of Jesus went without mention from His lips. I also am rather mixed, while I agree we should hold the texts in its historical context, we must also understand that the OT should be read in the light of the NT and not vice versa.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree with Origen, I think it important to say that Luke 24:44 tells us that Jesus did not think the Apocrypha important enough to teach. Also Luke 11:51 tells us what is required of us. I consider anything more additional reading. However, I caution others because these things may influence us, for example, I used to read Gnostic writings, and some things I read I mistaken from memory as being Scripture. In Luke 11:51 Jesus quoted the Hebrew OT in chronological order, and not to mention the Apocrypha which was already completed and existed in the day of Jesus went without mention from His lips. I also am rather mixed, while I agree we should hold the texts in its historical context, we must also understand that the OT should be read in the light of the NT and not vice versa.

 

God bless,

William

I am sorry William. I think I might have given the wrong impression. The Apocrypha was never part of the canon. There is abundant evidence for this.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry William. I think I might have given the wrong impression. The Apocrypha was never part of the canon. There is abundant evidence for this.

 

Oh, I didn't get that impression, but a reservation is how much "historical context" should we use in reading the OT. For example, the Trinity, using the historical backdrop and searching through commentators was that even a consideration in the day or only after the NT? Perhaps you can clarify that, but my only point was that the OT should be read through the lens of the NT, and that Jesus never mentioned the Apocrypha despite it being already completed and in circulation in His day.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

 

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

 

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

 

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

 

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

 

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

 

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

 

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

 

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

 

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

 

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. - by chick.com

 

Speakers

Forums

Shop

Donate

About

Quick Questions

 

quick questions home

browse quick questions

Didn't the Catholic Church add to the Bible?

 

Full Question

 

The Catholic Church claims to be the guardian of the Bible, but it demonstrated its hostility towards God's Word when it added unscriptural books to the Old Testament, namely the Apocrypha.

Answer

 

A few things need to be said here. First of all, the seven books in question--Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch--are properly called the deuterocanonical books.

 

Second, the label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory), and the "reformers" therefore needed some excuse to eliminate them from the canon. However, these books are "unscriptural" only if misinterpreted. It should also be noted that the first-century Christians--including Jesus and the apostles--effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament.

 

Third, the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

 

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

 

One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×